This is the authors' abstract. We don't add key points for this paper.
Covariance descriptors summarise cross-channel dependence in biosignal and machinery classification, but compact eigenvector summaries can map distinct covariance matrices to identical features. We define Spectral Moment Embedding (SME), a sign-invariant matrix-moment representation that preserves covariance information targeted by Characteristic Response Analysis (CRA) and its Positive-Orthant Characteristic Response (POCR), while avoiding non-injectivity from positive-orthant eigenvector summation. SME regularises each epoch covariance, forms C,C²,… ,Cᵖ by dense multiplication, and applies diagonal, upper-triangular half-vectorisation, or row-sum projections; a sub-window trajectory variant tests non-stationary trials. Five public datasets were evaluated under strict subject- or recording-grouped cross-validation against CRA/POCR, covariance, Riemannian, polynomial, and spectral baselines. SME exceeded POCR on Sleep-EDF staging ( $$64.5%$$ vs. $$44.2%$$ ), MIT-BIH arrhythmia ( $$37.7%$$ vs. $$19.2%$$ ), CWRU bearing faults ( $$84.1%$$ vs. $$45.5%$$ ), and UCI HAR ( $$80.5%$$ vs. $$62.0%$$ ). Motor imagery was negative: static SME reached $$30.2%$$ against POCR at $$31.9%$$ , and trajectory-SME fell to $$25.6%$$ . In sleep staging, multitaper PSD led globally ( $$71.9%$$ ), whereas SME retained a narrow N3 F1 advantage (0.806 vs. 0.782). Timing followed O(N³p) scaling and was three-to-five times faster than POCR at $$N=128$$ . SME is therefore a general covariance-moment algorithm, strongest when stable cross-channel covariance carries class information.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Lahiri et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: